41 replies to this topic

[LA84]

Great news for Chicagos bid! Obviously the USOC doesn't think that the 2 stadium concept is out of the question. For ceremonies, yes but other wise it is a large advantage over the other two contenders.

As Baron pointed out in the SF thread, SF is going to need some sort of staging area/warm up track at Candlestick, something it doesn't really have room for. With the temp stadium Chicago has an idea that should work as well as Atlanta's 2 stadiums did.

All 3 cities have a lot of tweaking before the final decision but at this point Chicago is in a good position with it's compact bid.

Newsome has already said he wants San Francisco to be more like Chicago - maybe Daley will give him some pointers - if he asks nicely!

[dave199]

ChiIn2016, on Aug 10 2006, 10:08 AM, said:

I believe that Atlanta used two stadiums for both ceremonies, with the old Fulton County Stadium right next to what is now Turner Field. County Stadium was used as a holding/staging area for the athletes, and they basically walked next door when their time came. I think that this is Chicago's idea also. Staging the athletes in Soldier Field gives them a much more roomier and comfortable waiting area than in the lower corridors of the new stadium.

But the difference is that Atlanta held the Opening/Closing Ceremonies and Athletics all in Turner Field (Olympic Stadium). Chicago plans to host Athletics in the Temporary Stadium since Soldier Field is unsuitable for Athletics and host the ceremonies at Soldier Field.

[baron-pierreIV]

ChiIn2016, on Aug 10 2006, 02:08 PM, said:

I believe that Atlanta used two stadiums for both ceremonies, with the old Fulton County Stadium right next to what is now Turner Field. County Stadium was used as a holding/staging area for the athletes, and they basically walked next door when their time came. I think that this is Chicago's idea also. Staging the athletes in Soldier Field gives them a much more roomier and comfortable waiting area than in the lower corridors of the new stadium.

Not just Atlanta; but LA - the LA Arena nearby was the 'support' stadium (& then became the Boxing venue); Barcelona had the new stadium (I think the St. Jordi) as the 'holding' tank. I think Sydney had one of the other venues close to Telstar to do the same. It wasn't set out that way; but it's just kinda evolved that there has been an adjunct stadium closeby that has indeed helped primarily in the staging of the Ceremonies. I mean the Ceremonies are only the Biggest Show on Earth every 4 years -- so you need all the 'backstage' so to speak.

But Chicago doesn't seem to understand this. One is merely backstage; the other is the 'show.'

I also want to make a comment on 'the over-crowding of Chicago's proposed venues downtown.' I was right again. The Chicago downtown plan as of now is just too crowded. They have to allow breathing room in-between venues so it doesn't feel like a meat market; so in case any suicide bombs get through, it will not affect more than one venue at a time -- AND will allow for many emergency and police vehicles to pass through quickly.

Edited by baron-pierreIV, 10 August 2006 - 12:52 PM.

[baron-pierreIV]

ChiIn2016, on Aug 10 2006, 04:52 PM, said:

I see the plans for the ceremonies to be staged in whatever new stadium is erected next to Soldier Field, with Soldier Field used as the backstage and staging area. The new stadium will hold the ceremonies as well as track and field. Soldier Field will be used during the game to host soccer (football) matches. Chicago's pro soccer team used Soldier Field as their home field until their new stadium opened this year. Soldier Field will not go unused during the games.

That's more like it. They should have said that and dropped the 2-stadium concept like it was something entirely revolutionary.

[dave199]

That would make more sense than the 2 stadium hosting plan. But the question is would the IOC buy this plan? They tend to favour the more glitterly and ambitious plans for brand new stadiums not temporary stadiums. Look at London, Beijing, Sydney,etc.

The stadium problem is going to be a big achillies heel for Chicago's bid.

[dmfcsf]

I think we're missing the point here. The problem with Chicago's stadium plan is not the two stadium aspect of it, but rather the temporary nature of the second stadium. Two adjacent stadiums would probably be no big deal by itself, a la Atlanta, but having the main track and field + ceremonies stadium being completely torn down afterwords seems ridiculous. At least Atlanta converted it into a baseball stadium.

If Chicago comes up with some idea that would make the second stadium part of some permanent structure, then maybe it'll be OK.

[baron-pierreIV]

dmfcsf, on Aug 10 2006, 05:49 PM, said:

I think we're missing the point here. The problem with Chicago's stadium plan is not the two stadium aspect of it, but rather the temporary nature of the second stadium. Two adjacent stadiums would probably be no big deal by itself, a la Atlanta, but having the main track and field + ceremonies stadium being completely torn down afterwords seems ridiculous. At least Atlanta converted it into a baseball stadium.

If Chicago comes up with some idea that would make the second stadium part of some permanent structure, then maybe it'll be OK.

Yes; I've also expressed that before. Spending even $250 mil for a temporary stadium is kinda stupid. Build a proper brand-new stadium; then tear down the old one. But that's just one of the 'irresponsible ways' the IOC views things and how you conduct business with them if you want to host the Games.

Edited by baron-pierreIV, 10 August 2006 - 01:02 PM.

[dave199]

dmfcsf, on Aug 10 2006, 01:49 PM, said:

I think we're missing the point here. The problem with Chicago's stadium plan is not the two stadium aspect of it, but rather the temporary nature of the second stadium. Two adjacent stadiums would probably be no big deal by itself, a la Atlanta, but having the main track and field + ceremonies stadium being completely torn down afterwords seems ridiculous. At least Atlanta converted it into a baseball stadium.

If Chicago comes up with some idea that would make the second stadium part of some permanent structure, then maybe it'll be OK.

I think they'll be reducing the capacity of the temp stadium and it will be used for future Athletics purposes. Honestly, it doesn't seem pretty attractive to me. None of the major sporting franchises in Chicago need a new home stadium. Will this "temp stadium" actually be utilized and viable for a future purpose? The purpose of building an Olympic Stadium is to leave a lasting legacy for the city, unfortunately I do not see that happening in Chicago.